This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
The State is a straw man that you don't need to obey
Scroll to see replies
Original post by fodder
You're missing the point again. I'm not talking about some obscure argument that something is outside the court's jurisdiction. I am talking about a refusal to engage way before something could go to court for example not giving your name and address to a police officer, not answering any questions, and not stating that you understand anything to do with your "rights".
No, you've misunderstood. If a communication is sent to someone for legal proceedings, whether that leads to a trial or not, it must still be lodged somewhere on the public record. Otherwise, said recipient will have to spend the rest of their life constantly batting away such communications, because nobody has it on record that they cannot be communicated to. Comprende? So please send me proof.
Let me give you another what you call shaggy dog story but it's a real story. Cut a long story short I found myself I a precarious position of having to deposit £350,000 cash into a bank. When the teller asked me where the money came from I said were moving house so I was just cleaning out my safe. She accepts the statement and keyed it into the computer. Nothing ever followed. Let's say hypothetically a policeman questioned me and had me linked to a straw man my response would be "I decline to answer your questions. Are you charging me with a crime or am
I free to go." As there is no grounds to charge me with a crime, the matter would be concluded. Only if I had broken Common Law (eg.
Killed someone) he could then charge me with a crime but as I don't break Common Law he cannot. The only types of crimes he could consider charging me for would be synthetic crimes like transmitting information without a government license. As he doesn't have any record of such activity ever having taken place, he could try and trick me into an admission of guilt. Assuming that I'm not that stupid, the matter is concludes. There would
be no record because the thing was never formalised in the first place.
I free to go." As there is no grounds to charge me with a crime, the matter would be concluded. Only if I had broken Common Law (eg.
Killed someone) he could then charge me with a crime but as I don't break Common Law he cannot. The only types of crimes he could consider charging me for would be synthetic crimes like transmitting information without a government license. As he doesn't have any record of such activity ever having taken place, he could try and trick me into an admission of guilt. Assuming that I'm not that stupid, the matter is concludes. There would
be no record because the thing was never formalised in the first place.
I refuse to believe any of this without a source. I assert you have fabricated it, or have been told it by someone else who fabricated it.
Here's a link of my own: attempts to claim the court has no jurisdiction always results in quite hilarious failure on the part of the Freeman: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land#Freeman_failures
Original post by fodder
You seem to think that I think the state trumps statute law with Common Law. I know that the state does not do this.
I do this not the state. So it is for me to separate statute law and common law by keeping my real person, my primary straw man, my various secondary straw man, and my various straw man company entities and the state straw man rationalised and separated where possible so that the state cannot attempt to enforce its statutes on me which it has no right to do.
I do this not the state. So it is for me to separate statute law and common law by keeping my real person, my primary straw man, my various secondary straw man, and my various straw man company entities and the state straw man rationalised and separated where possible so that the state cannot attempt to enforce its statutes on me which it has no right to do.
There are plenty of examples of court cases where the courts have destroyed every claim you make here.
Original post by gladders
There are plenty of examples of court cases where the courts have destroyed every claim you make here.
I'm sure the courts would destroy every claim I made here because the courts are wrong. The court defend the straw man state not Common Law.
I can chose whether I want freedom or not. If my total idea of freedom falls under statute law then no problem. If it does not, I must either curtail my freedom to that allowed by statute or, or I must play a shell game with straw men in order to be under the radar of the state straw man.
Of course no court will accept this but if I follow common law and the practise of not submitting to authority and keeping the straw men separate long before something can get to court, it is very unlikely to get to court. If in the very unlikely event it gets to court, you continue the shell game by agreeing with the court and showing there is no dispute.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Creating multiple straw men is very easy. One example is buying a prepaid Visa card and registering it with the details of your new straw man then printing off a statement. Another way is to pay a few thousand pounds to a lawyer on a Caribbean island to set you up a straw man company.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
So it's honest-to-goodness nonsense then, right? You claim you can shrug off the state's control by throwing weird legal verbal diarrhea at them, but when it inevitably fails, you can claim the courts are enforcing a sham?
Just like all the other conspiracy theories then, if reality gets in the way, declare reality to be wrong.
Just like all the other conspiracy theories then, if reality gets in the way, declare reality to be wrong.
The law is a social construct created by humans who take power in order to control other humans. Whether common law, statute, or edict, the humans in power will still exercise power over you via their agents. You can't get away from this fact.
It's like two prisoners trying to debate/rationalise with a serial killer in terms of his own rules and beliefs: "but you said you only maim blonde people, so why kill me?". He can still kill you on a whim if he chooses to, or disregard his rules/beliefs and kill you anyway.
It's like two prisoners trying to debate/rationalise with a serial killer in terms of his own rules and beliefs: "but you said you only maim blonde people, so why kill me?". He can still kill you on a whim if he chooses to, or disregard his rules/beliefs and kill you anyway.
Original post by gladders
So it's honest-to-goodness nonsense then, right? You claim you can shrug off the state's control by throwing weird legal verbal diarrhea at them, but when it inevitably fails, you can claim the courts are enforcing a sham?
Just like all the other conspiracy theories then, if reality gets in the way, declare reality to be wrong.
Just like all the other conspiracy theories then, if reality gets in the way, declare reality to be wrong.
It does not fail though it works. And I only say to you that the courts are enforcing a sham, I would not say it to the court. I would tell the court that I am in full agreement with the sham they are enforcing and with the claim the other party is making thereby closing down the case.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Gott
Good for them, I see what you mean that thoes who are not able to avoid tax themselves, should not complain about thoes who are able to exercise principles. It is pure embitteredness on their part. Just because someone stole from me doesn't mean I'd object to others able to do so, preventing the thief from robbing them… I mean call me inegalitarian
Actually almost everyone has the ability to avoid most of the taxes and it's just ignorance and lack of self discipline on their party that keeps them paying many of them. Most people even PAYE earners can half their tax burden, all they need to do for starters is read the Financial Times Personal Tax book. Tax is set up so that the lazy pay more.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by fodder
It does not fail though it works. And I only say to you that the courts are enforcing a sham, I would not say it to the court. I would tell the court that I am in full agreement with the sham they are enforcing and with the claim the other party is making thereby closing down the case.
I have seen no evidence that it works, and plenty of cases where it hasn't, and the litigant has been sent to jail. It's crank law peddled by seriously dangerous people who end up making many people miserable who fall for their swill.
The law cannot say one thing and mean the other. The courts have consistently punished people who attempt the tactics of the Freemen-on-the-Land. If they worked, they would need only work once, and precedent would mean that there would no longer be any examples of such people going to jail. Hell, it would be on record.
It cannot simultaneously be the case that your tactics would work and yet the courts deny it and somehow scotch the evidence of it working. If it was truly that way, then what the hell are you doing living here? Go move to a scratch of land where your crazy ideas could be tried out, and once you're sick of living in a stateless society, we can reconsider letting you back in.
One of the reasons I hate the Labour Party is because they are trying to convince people that donors to other political parties that don't respect the straw man are evil, suggesting this its in the working mans interest to respect the straw man. But it is not. The straw man state fleeces the working man for nearly everything he has to support massive state bureaucracy which does nothing,
and then tries to tell him they are on his side.
Posted from TSR Mobile
and then tries to tell him they are on his side.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by gladders
I have seen no evidence that it works, and plenty of cases where it hasn't, and the litigant has been sent to jail. It's crank law peddled by seriously dangerous people who end up making many people miserable who fall for their swill.
The law cannot say one thing and mean the other. The courts have consistently punished people who attempt the tactics of the Freemen-on-the-Land. If they worked, they would need only work once, and precedent would mean that there would no longer be any examples of such people going to jail. Hell, it would be on record.
It cannot simultaneously be the case that your tactics would work and yet the courts deny it and somehow scotch the evidence of it working. If it was truly that way, then what the hell are you doing living here? Go move to a scratch of land where your crazy ideas could be tried out, and once you're sick of living in a stateless society, we can reconsider letting you back in.
The law cannot say one thing and mean the other. The courts have consistently punished people who attempt the tactics of the Freemen-on-the-Land. If they worked, they would need only work once, and precedent would mean that there would no longer be any examples of such people going to jail. Hell, it would be on record.
It cannot simultaneously be the case that your tactics would work and yet the courts deny it and somehow scotch the evidence of it working. If it was truly that way, then what the hell are you doing living here? Go move to a scratch of land where your crazy ideas could be tried out, and once you're sick of living in a stateless society, we can reconsider letting you back in.
You have seen no evidence that it works because the minute someone produced evidence that it worked, they would immediately incriminate themselves within the construct of the straw man and have to pay an invoice or be put in a box.
The minute the evidence is produced and distributed, it would not work. I guess someone could do a test case and film it if they were just interested theoretical and had no intention in actually disassociating with the construct.
Most people would not even be able to follow such evidence properly as I think they have been convinced that they are the straw man and the situation would be beyond their comprehension.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by fodder
You have seen no evidence that it works because the minute someone produced evidence that it worked, they would immediately incriminate themselves within the construct of the straw man and have to pay an invoice or be put in a box.
The minute the evidence is produced and distributed, it would not work. I guess someone could do a test case and film it if they were just interested theoretical and had no intention in actually disassociating with the construct.
Most people would not even be able to follow such evidence properly as I think they have been convinced that they are the straw man and the situation would be beyond their comprehension.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The minute the evidence is produced and distributed, it would not work. I guess someone could do a test case and film it if they were just interested theoretical and had no intention in actually disassociating with the construct.
Most people would not even be able to follow such evidence properly as I think they have been convinced that they are the straw man and the situation would be beyond their comprehension.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I just went and looked into it and some people have made such experiments.
Posted from TSR Mobile
British Constitution Group - The Courts are scared of us - We arrest judges:
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by fodder
You have seen no evidence that it works because the minute someone produced evidence that it worked, they would immediately incriminate themselves within the construct of the straw man and have to pay an invoice or be put in a box.
The minute the evidence is produced and distributed, it would not work. I guess someone could do a test case and film it if they were just interested theoretical and had no intention in actually disassociating with the construct.
Most people would not even be able to follow such evidence properly as I think they have been convinced that they are the straw man and the situation would be beyond their comprehension.
The minute the evidence is produced and distributed, it would not work. I guess someone could do a test case and film it if they were just interested theoretical and had no intention in actually disassociating with the construct.
Most people would not even be able to follow such evidence properly as I think they have been convinced that they are the straw man and the situation would be beyond their comprehension.
Oh for pity's sake. How convenient for you. Apparently, folks, evidence that the State can be overturned cannot be produced because making it known would allow the State to win
this is special stuff.You've failed to produce proof, and you've failed to demonstrate how anything you say is within any known law. You clearly think by doing so you're harking back to some kind of ancient golden age of when people were 'truly' free - could you say when this was? When the State figured out a way to bypass this voluntary society (which actually never existed)?
Original post by gladders
Oh for pity's sake. How convenient for you. Apparently, folks, evidence that the State can be overturned cannot be produced because making it known would allow the State to win this is special stuff.
You've failed to produce proof, and you've failed to demonstrate how anything you say is within any known law. You clearly think by doing so you're harking back to some kind of ancient golden age of when people were 'truly' free - could you say when this was? When the State figured out a way to bypass this voluntary society (which actually never existed)?
this is special stuff.You've failed to produce proof, and you've failed to demonstrate how anything you say is within any known law. You clearly think by doing so you're harking back to some kind of ancient golden age of when people were 'truly' free - could you say when this was? When the State figured out a way to bypass this voluntary society (which actually never existed)?
I have posted 4 of other people's videos on the subject as evidence. Please watch them.
I refer to as Common Law the basic tenants of behaviour that men have agreed on through the ages.
I have no strong opinion on whether or whether not there was a "Golden Age". It doesn't have any relevance to the topic of the state attempting to enforce rules and demand payments for which is has not right.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by fodder
That video doesn't prove a thing. The driver threw a whole bunch of gobbledygook at two plods about the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice being 'informed' about the absence of license plates on the van. The two coppers have likely never heard that line of reasoning before, because Freemen are a niche, obscure breed and they've probably never met them before. Basically, they were bull****ted.
They failed in their duty by not reporting it anyway, but it wasn't down to them recognising 'damn! He's got us!', it's more a case of believing it not to be their jobs' worth.
I can't hear a word that magistrate is saying, so I can't see this as 'winning again'.
This isn't a courtroom. It's a hearing. The judge didn't abandon the court. She excused herself to talk to the court personnel on how to handle this nut job. After he left, the judge issued a bench warrant and had him arrested. He was found guilty by a jury after 15 minutes, was fined, and sentenced to several months in jail:
http://www.belgrade-news.com/news/article_c6050380-87c6-11e3-a9e2-001a4bcf887a.html
Original post by fodder
Cite where it allows people to use convoluted nonsense to shrug off rule by law.
I love the idea of a common law anarchy.
As an attempt to seriously describe current english jurisprudence, though, it seems like obvious bull****. When has Britain ever been without a state? If it has never been without a state, how can it possibly be that ECL was originally conceived as not permitting any power for the state to make statute laws?
edit: Another thing I don't understand about this group - they seem to also repudiate debts, including private debts. But a private debt is a contractual agreement between two individuals. How can you possibly justify repudiating such a debt on the basis of common law?
As an attempt to seriously describe current english jurisprudence, though, it seems like obvious bull****. When has Britain ever been without a state? If it has never been without a state, how can it possibly be that ECL was originally conceived as not permitting any power for the state to make statute laws?
edit: Another thing I don't understand about this group - they seem to also repudiate debts, including private debts. But a private debt is a contractual agreement between two individuals. How can you possibly justify repudiating such a debt on the basis of common law?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by gladders
That video doesn't prove a thing. The driver threw a whole bunch of gobbledygook at two plods about the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice being 'informed' about the absence of license plates on the van. The two coppers have likely never heard that line of reasoning before, because Freemen are a niche, obscure breed and they've probably never met them before. Basically, they were bull****ted.
They failed in their duty by not reporting it anyway, but it wasn't down to them recognising 'damn! He's got us!', it's more a case of believing it not to be their jobs' worth.
I can't hear a word that magistrate is saying, so I can't see this as 'winning again'.
This isn't a courtroom. It's a hearing. The judge didn't abandon the court. She excused herself to talk to the court personnel on how to handle this nut job. After he left, the judge issued a bench warrant and had him arrested. He was found guilty by a jury after 15 minutes, was fined, and sentenced to several months in jail:
http://www.belgrade-news.com/news/article_c6050380-87c6-11e3-a9e2-001a4bcf887a.html
They failed in their duty by not reporting it anyway, but it wasn't down to them recognising 'damn! He's got us!', it's more a case of believing it not to be their jobs' worth.
I can't hear a word that magistrate is saying, so I can't see this as 'winning again'.
This isn't a courtroom. It's a hearing. The judge didn't abandon the court. She excused herself to talk to the court personnel on how to handle this nut job. After he left, the judge issued a bench warrant and had him arrested. He was found guilty by a jury after 15 minutes, was fined, and sentenced to several months in jail:
http://www.belgrade-news.com/news/article_c6050380-87c6-11e3-a9e2-001a4bcf887a.html
That is very interesting. He has actually been put in a box for not consenting to being governed by statute law. (Using derivative Legalese terms).
This causes people to ask the question of why people are put in boxes if they openly refuse to consent.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by gladders
Cite where it allows people to use convoluted nonsense to shrug off rule by law.
Common law says that you cannot swindle someone.
Trying to pretend to someone that they have consented to a contract that they have not consented to is a swindle. Enforcing a non-existent contract is a swindle.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
